Nepomuceno Vs Comelec.docx

Nepomuceno vs. COMELEC G. R. No. L-60601 PLAINTIFF: Cesar Nepomuceno, Leon Arcillas, and Ruben Avenido DEFENDANT: COMELEC DATE: December 29, 1983 PONENTE: TOPIC: Rule 33 Facts:              

Petitioners Cesar Nepomuceno, Leon Arcillas, and Ruben Avenido were the official candidates of the Nacionalista Party in the 1980 local elections for the positions of mayor, vice mayor, and member of the Sangguniang Bayan, respectively, of Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Oscar Laserna filed a petition before the Comelec to disqualify petitioners on the ground of turncoatism. The Comelec granted the petition, denying due course to petitioners’ certificates of candidacy. Alleging denial of due process, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order, which the Court granted. The petitioners were allowed to be voted for in the elections. In the said elections, petitioners won and were proclaimed winners in their respective positions. The Court remanded the case to Comelec for hearing and to decide the case as expeditiously as possible after giving the parties full opportunity to present all evidence relevant to the issue of alleged turncoatism. The Comelec accordingly set the case for hearing on the merits. However, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the said case. The petitioners alleged that, it being a pre-election case, the same should be dismissed, without prejudice to the filing of appropriate quo warranto proceedings pursuant to the 1978 Election Code. The motion was denied. Petitioners filed another petition, this time with the Supreme Court, assailing the Comelec’s resolution which denied their motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the second petition. The Comelec proceeded with the case. After Oscar Laserna had terminated the presentation of his evidence, petitioners filed their respective Motions to Dismiss/Demurrer to Evidence, which were opposed by Laserna. The Comelec issued the following order denying the demurrer to evidence. The Comelec held that the Commission Second Division would rather have the complete facts and evidence of the parties upon which to reach a decision than prematurely go into it now upon the facts and evidence of the petitioner only. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss with the Comelec, which was denied.

Issue/s WON Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to resolve the petitioner’s demurrer to evidence by way of a judgment wherein it should state the facts and the law on which its resolution is based. – NO. Ruling Rule 35 of the Rules of Court allows the defendant to move for dismissal of the case after the plaintiff has presented his evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, and provides for the effects of the dismissal or non-dismissal, as the case may be, on the right of the defendant to present his cause. It authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant having to submit evidence on his part as he would ordinarily have to do, if it is shown by plaintiff’s evidence that the latter is not entitled to the relief sought. The demurrer, therefore, is an aid or instrument for the expeditious termination of an action, similar to a motion to dismiss, which the court or tribunal may either grant or deny. The requirement of Section 1 of Rule 36 would only apply if the demurrer is granted, for in this event, there would in fact be an adjudication on the merits of the case. A denial of the demurrer is not a final judgment, but merely interlocutory in character as it does not finally dispose of the case, the defendant having yet the right to present his evidence. The challenged order being merely an interlocutory order and not a final judgment or decision, no abuse of discretion was committed by Comelec in its failure to state the facts and the law on which its order denying petitioners’ demurrer to evidence is based.